Ross speaks on topics including Indonesia, Bali, Cancer and wellness. Also on social matters within our community.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Indonesia a victim of its own war on Australia's live-cattle export trade

WA’s respected and insightful Buddhist leader, Abbott
Ajan Brahm once said that the problem with seeking revenge is that you become a
‘victim of your own war’, in that you can often suffer as much ‘damage’ as the
person to whom you are directing your revenge.

It was good advice and something we all, at sometime,
have been guilty of intentionally forgetting.

It is also ironical advice given that Ajan Brahm is
highly admired and respected in Indonesia, where he holds many seminars and
retreats, at a time when Indonesia’s agricultural officials are seeking and
carrying-out revenge on Australia’s cattle industry for our appalling handling
of the live-cattle export crisis in 2011.

As the Indonesian government announced further
reductions in the quota for live-cattle from Australia, David Farley, managing
director of Australian Agricultural Company (AAC) says the action by Indonesia
will result in even greater bankruptcies and job losses for an industry already
in serious trouble following our government’s impulsive decision to ban the
export of live cattle to Indonesia.

The impact of these latest cuts will be dramatic.
Prior to the cattle ban being imposed last year, Australia exported in excess
of 520,000 head-of-cattle to Indonesia each year. Next year the revised quota will
be reduced to just 230,000 cattle annually.

Indonesia had every right to feel aggrieved over
this issue. Beef makes up a very important part of the Indonesian diet, and to
have the Australian agriculture minister announce a total ban on the export of
live-cattle to Indonesia without any consultation with our near neighbours sent
shock waves through the entire supply chain and left Indonesian officials and
ministers embarrassed and seething.

As a result, Indonesia announced that it intends to
become ‘self sufficient’ in live-cattle that can be used for slaughter. This is
a noble objective but it is also not achievable, and nor is it sensible.

Indonesia has some of the finest horticulture land
in the world; rich soils with plenty of rainfall along with warm and humid conditions
that allows its people to grow a huge variety of crops and effectively become
Asia’s food bowl.

It does not make any sense to turn over pristine
food growing land for the purpose of breeding cattle. Those in the cattle
industry have known for years that, as the outgoing WA trade director, Martin Newbery
said last week, “Australians are the best cattle breeders and Indonesian’s, the
best cattle feeders.” He is right.

For this reason, to have cattle bred in Australia,
where we have the land, infrastructure and expertise, then export them to
Indonesia where they are placed in feedlots and ‘bulked-up’not only makes sense, it is almost the
prefect supply structure whereby all parties win.

The Australian live-cattle trade should be booming
on the back of Indonesia’s strong economic and population growth, with the
industry being used as a model for the development of other major agricultural partnerships
between Australia and Indonesia. Instead, we now have a relationship that is
untrustworthy and fractured and where Indonesia seeks to ‘payback’ Australia
for what it did to a trusted friend, whilst simultaneously harming its own
supply network and inflicting shortages and increased prices on its own
community.

The price of beef at the ‘wet markets’ within
Indonesia has effectively doubled since the quota reductions in Australian beef
as Indonesia struggles to meet demand from its internal supplies.

So why does Indonesia now want to reduce the quota
of Australian cattle even further?

The answer is complicated but includes Indonesia’s
desire to be self-sufficient in beef supply and thus ensure Australia can never
again hold Indonesia ‘to ransom’ by cutting-off a major food supply source without
warning.

But there are other more darker reasons behind
Indonesia’s actions, including the rise of nationalism, and a distrust in some
quarters of Australia’s agenda in developing the much lauded Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
(CEPA) that will provide both countries enormous opportunities to develop far
greater business and trade opportunities.

What is even more disturbing however, is that
Australia’s agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig seems helpless in addressing this
progression into mutual economic self-harm at a time when Indonesia-Australia government
relations are said to be at an all time high.

Within Indonesia, the internationally popular
president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is nearing the end of his term. This is unfortunate
timing for both countries as SBY-as
he is effectionally known-has a deep and warm respect for Australia, but
internally Indonesians see SBY as a president who has already ‘run his race’ and
perhaps what we are now seeing is a small taste of things to come as Indonesia
heads towards electing a new president in 2014.

In previous commentary on Indonesia-Australia
relationships I have highlighted the enormous opportunities that exists for our
two countries to work together to build extensive and mutually beneficial
partnerships as we move into ‘The Asian
Century’.

The live-cattle export industry should have been a
glowing example of how we can develop these partnerships, yet sadly this
industry has become an example of what can go terribly wrong when international
diplomacy is conducted ‘on the run’ by a minister who had little understanding
of Indonesia or the extent of the long term opportunities that would be lost as
a consequence his impulsive decisions.

Meanwhile, Indonesia continues to remind Australia
about what it did and to seek revenge for the shabby treatment from its
neighbour; even if this means higher prices and shortages for its own people.

5 comments:

In response to your claims that Indonesia decided to work towards self-sufficiency after the suspension of Australian cattle to Indonesia in June 2011, is factually incorrect. Prior to the suspension there were numerous articles on Indonesia’s plans and actions to become self-sufficient. Please find below one such article dated13th May 2010, which is prior to June 2011 suspension. In addition, if you knew more about the industry you would know that Indonesia capped the number of cattle imported to 500,000 long before the suspension and restricted feeder weight to 350 kg, part of their self-sufficency plans. Suspensions/bans are nothing new for governments in 2004 after 5,000 sheep died on an Australian ship bound for Saudi Arabia, trade was stopped. The government also suspended the export of live sheep to Egypt in 2006 after a television program exposed cruel practices in slaughterhouses there.

http://www.thecattlesite.com/news/30755/indonesia-to-cut-meat-imports

You seem unconcerned about the animal breaches in Indonesia. Just so you are aware Indonesia as a signatory to the OIE are required to adhere to OIE “world standards”. It is clear that Indonesia, have never met these standards and may never meet these standards. As Australia is also a signatory of the OIE, and we operate above and beyond these standards, we have an obligation under the OIE to make sure that other signatory countries also adhere to these standards. The government really had not choice, seeing as industry failed to act, to suspended the trade until such time as there were standards put in place, which was ESCAS.

Indonesia as I have stated already capped the quota for Live at 500,000 head of cattle and introduced weight restrictions prior to the suspension. What was that for then? if not, self sufficiency? All their actions have always been in keeping with their "self sufficiency" plans, so I am not sure why you choose to think otherwise. Maybe the MLA should have acted on their own report "Independent study into animal welfare conditions for cattle in Indonesia from point of arrival from Australia to slaughter May 2010" and then Lyn White wouldn't have needed to travel to Indonesia and show the world how Indonesia, as a signatory of the OIE was not upholding the standards that they are required to as signatories. Obviously if Indonesia, took Animal Welfare more seriously and introduced Animal Welfare Laws that protect animals, that you wouldn't be trying to lay the blame for industry's shortcomings, on a Minister, who had no other choice but to suspend trade. Are you suggesting he should have continued sending our animals there, under those conditions?

Please! "Our animals"?? Why don't you go into business and risk your livelihood and raise some animals and then you can "feel" for them more personally. How dare you in your "compassion" for animals destroy the livelihoods of others who supply your needs and wants food-wise and clothing-wise?